NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL112024_06B52032024-07-11 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, an interpreter and translator, proposed to create a company in Massachusetts providing interpreting and translation services in English, Spanish, and Portuguese to hospitals, clinics, insurance brokers, law offices, schools, and universities.

Field: interpreting and translation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner did not qualify as advanced degree professional or exceptional ability individual, but AAO reserved this determination since NIW eligibility was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor would impact her field, industry, or the economy more broadly beyond her company's clientele at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner does not specify how her company would accomplish these benefits through its work with individual entities.”
“These projections do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and the record does not indicate that Massachusetts or other areas the Petitioner hopes to expand her services to are economically depressed.”
“The Petitioner did not show that such revenue is significantly higher than other companies in her field or would otherwise have a significant positive economic effect on a level of national importance.”
“She does not specify how the Petitioner's company will impact any of these sectors more broadly beyond the services she will provide to individual entities.”
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her potential clientele to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “These projections do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “She does not specify how the Petitioner's services to individual entities through her company will result in these benefits.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not show that such revenue is significantly higher than other companies in her field”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO reserved the threshold EB-2 classification determination entirely since prong 1 failure was dispositive; cites Fifth Circuit's Flores v. Garland on the discretionary nature of NIW grants in a footnote.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer